Proposing a Hypothesis Meta-Structure (Beginner) with Rob

And that's what it looks like. So with that in mind, you've got to ask what is the main point?

What is the main point here? So I would look at it like this, okay? What is the subject of the passage?

What is the author's opinion on it? So when you have a passage like this that is proposing an hypothesis, the thesis is going to be the main point, but you want to make sure it includes a little bit like, hey, there should be a little bit more testing too.

Because if you just say the author thinks that our ability, like evolution and cooking technique made it so we can't process raw food, you wouldn't really be digging into at all.

You're not covering at all how the author is unsure about how the digestive system plays a role or how much evidence there really is to support the author.

author. So with the proposing the hypothesis, you know, main point, you end up saying like, well, here's the main point is the author suggests this with this caveat that more research needs to be done in this area.

So I would come up with something like this, I would say like, Hey, there's a possibility, like, or like, it seems likely that our adaptation to cooked food made it so we can't process raw food.

But there's still a lot of work to be done in understanding exactly why we can't process raw food. And I'm going to pick something looks like that.

So a does they look like that? I mean, you guys, why didn't fathom that kick on? I see what happened.

Well, then. Yeah. Okay, and there we go. All right, you guys see my screen. All right. Sorry, that was like a little technical thing, just in order to flag this for the archives.

OK. So A, important question is about why humans are unable to survive on raw food or unresolved by current science.

That's true, but it doesn't get into the author's thesis at all. Current evidence suggests that human beings are biologically adapted to the ingestion of cooked, rather than raw food.

Well, I like that a lot more. I'd like to steal the author hesitating a little bit, but some of that hesitation is in current evidence suggests.

Like if it said current evidence proves, I would throw that out. But current evidence suggests, I'll love it. I honestly think it'd be a move on.

You know, I mean, any reason not to big be. Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think so. I'm just going to pick up.

21 authors. It would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements as a reminder for questions like these the authors believe in two other beliefs and two things in this world only to two things.

The other believes in the main point and things that support the point so if you see in any of the like you don't want to speculate and be like you know this author seems like the kind of person who would believe that there was a second shooter in the Kennedy assassin like that's not the conversation you want to.

It's like a stupid example, but like you do not want to speculate what the author thinks about on topics and themes unrelated to the ones that are presented right here solely contained in this passage.

That's it like you don't have to speculate on what the author thinks about evolution of some other thing that's unrelated you don't like the author believes in the main point and things that support the main point.

pick an answer to choice that supports the main point in some way. A, small teeth and jaws limit the ability of humans to routinely utilize raw food.

Why would you, you know, is there any reason we shouldn't pick that? Like, does that support the main point?

What is the main point that humans cannot process raw food because we've adapted to cooked food? And what is one of those adaptations, small teeth and jaws?

I'm not once, that one's done. Like, you've got to just pick that one and move on. You know, not, I mean, you also, it's kind of a bonus that it's like spectacularly logical.

Like, I think that this is kind of a poorly written question because if you didn't even read, maybe, like, I think people will probably look at this and they're like, oh, it's too easy.

So, yeah, no, thanks for yourself. It's just the red and uneasy. The primary purpose of the parenthetical sentence near the end of the first paragraph is to remember what that one was.

So the parenthetical sentence talks about how food preparation is at least a quarter million years old. Now, what that does is it offers support for the authors content, like the author is upset that people want to say that, hey, cooking is too recent for us to change.

And that's why the author says, no, you're wrong, cooking is a quarter million years old. So the author is saying, no, no, no, we have, we, in a quarter million years, have definitely had enough time to evolve to a different kind of method of cooking.

And I would pick something that looks like that in the answer choices. A, identify the amount of time that is required for a behavior.

don't like that. don't like any. any kind of requirements for that. There's no requirement at all. I don't want to read the rest of that one.

The provide support for the idea that cooking has been practiced for a relatively long time. Yes. Yes, in order to dispel the notion that we didn't have time to evolve from it.

Yes, it is the done. in terms of technique, notice how I didn't really go back to the line. Like, it is a, I mean, if you read well upfront and spend your time recapping and really do this while you're reading, you're stopping to analyze and think about things in a deep and concentrated way that help people to go back.

Just knowing how that whole argument was constructed is a lot more helpful to you than going back and trying to read around the text a little bit.

Like, there's like this hierarchy. If you guys have seen that meme, I'm not really like a meme guy, but there's the meme where there's, you know, like there's like some kind of like brain that, you know, it's just like, you know, like a side profile, there's like very little activity.

And then the next panel has like more activity. And then like the next one has super activity. then the fourth one, it's like, you know, neurons are just like firing all over the place.

I think about that. When I think about how many else that taker is, two questions like this. When you have a question that directs you to a specific line in the passage and is like, why do you other use this line?

What's that all about? The lowest level of thinking is like, I'm going to read that line and make a decision on this.

Now, the next lowest level of thinking, which is like step two, you know, step two's like really like, like you're still like very early in the game.

two is where people are like, I know what I'll do. I'll read around the text. I bet everybody's just reading the text, but I'll read around it.

Everybody is reading around the text. I mean, everybody's on step like everybody has at least accomplished step two. Everybody was like born yesterday is doing step one.

Everybody who was born like, you know, who was like over one day old is always doing step two. So step two does not differentiate you from like the herd of LSAT takers.

Step two is like, I'm going read around the text. No, the way that you want to think about this is I'm going to understand what the text is like read around it and hope that I can get

something out of it, like I'm going to know what that was, pick something that vibes with the general sense of the argument that the author is going for in this paragraph.

If you forget it, like a little helpful tip on this, which is like a step that what I just described as like step four, but if you can't quite get to step four where your neurons are just like going bananas, step three is where you look at a line and the purpose of any line in a paragraph is to support the point of the paragraph.

So all you got to do is figure out what the paragraph is about and then that's going to get you probably will be.

So let's pick the answer. The authors would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements, what do the authors agree with?

Well, they agree that there's some evidence that supports that our adaptation to cooking has restricted our adaptation to consume raw food.

Notice how I'm getting better and better, understanding the main point, like that is the benefit that you get by articulating as you go.

Like you're just going to get sharper and sharper and sharper. What do they also agree with? Well, they think that there needs to be more testing on the digestive system because they actually really don't know if the digestive system reflects an adaptation to.

Who would or just an adaptation to be getting a lot better to me. What else do they know? Well, you know a lot about human jaw sizes and dental evolution too.

So, you know, that will be relevant. a raw food diet is significantly healthier. Don't even pick that. Like, don't you dare pick that.

At no point in this, do they weigh in on what is healthier at all. The only time that they like appeared to do that was saying like, hey, you can't really live off of raw food unless you're like living a sedentary lifestyle in a will.

You support your urban environment, which implies. That trying to live off of raw food in a different environment would be harmful to your health that doesn't why that but beyond that They don't really dig into health Be humans would not be able to utilize Kirk food in their diet if during their evolution.

They're not Logically adapted to it. That's actually wrong Why You know why that's wrong it's because the whole beginning of the passage was saying that Why did we even adapt to it at all because it's literally easier than raw food, so like We didn't adapt to cooking food Or like we didn't adapt in order to cook food We cooked food and then we had started adapting to that process But there's a big difference on that the author and and a difference because the author does not think we actually adapted in order to cook food The author thinks that like hey these early humans could eat raw food

And they could eat cooked food, and it was all the same. Like they weren't like, oh, don't give me that cooked food.

That's going to really screw up my system. That's what the author's saying in the first paragraph is that humans found cooked food easier to eat, so they did not have to have additional adaptations to that.

So that was like, B is wrong. Yeah, like that is the kind of choice that you can just eliminate right away because you read the text really well upfront.

If you didn't read the text well upfront, this is the kind of thing that's like a nightmare for people, an absolute nightmare.

Because you're like, OK, that condamaked science, because we're talking about evolution and evolution means we like change from one thing to the next.

So I guess maybe I'll pick it and you're going to have a very hard time finding it in the text.

Because you kind of have to read like the first four sentences and then step back and then be like, oh.

And that's where you get the from. But what happens when you don't do your work up front, is you look at something like being in the entire passage, again, in a really haphazard way, trying to look for be, and you don't even find it, and then you get frustrated.

And then I don't know what happens after you get frustrated. Loose time, I guess. Loose time and energy. humans controlled fire long before they adopted the practice of cooking their food.

I don't know if that's true. I don't know. It might be, it might not be, don't know. I mean, I think it could be, right?

if you figured out how to use fire, you're like, don't put the food in that. Like, we have to eat that.

just don't put the food in this, like, magical thing that keeps, like, possible, but it's not in the tax.

the Practice of eating a diet of cooked food did not become standard until humans were able lead sedentary lives That is not in the back like the evolution of humans leading sedentary lives is not in the passage at all There's only one comment on sedentary lifestyle, it's completely unrelated to D So I would not pick D I don't even I'm not I don't want to dig into D like I'm tempted To be like okay for three other reasons D is wrong But like I'm gonna hold the phone on that because you don't need to know those other reasons You just need to recognize that this is not like this answer choices in outer space And he empirical evidence does not yet definitively show love this right?

I hope what the rest of the sentence works out But I love this because This Why do I love it why I love it so much

This paragraph three, paragraph three is all like, is all saying, hey, we don't know how the digestive system actually evolved.

We don't know if it was to like high density meat diets, or if it was to cook food diets, we just, we don't know it, can't figure it out, not definitive.

If you look at E, like you should pick E, hundred times out of a hundred. The reason for that is because if you are tracking and you're like, hey, the thesis was that they suggested something, when you suggest something, it, it, like, I'm not even sure if you can use the word suggest, like, not in terms of a recommendation, but just like, when instead of, like, concluding definitively, you're like, I'm suggesting that this evidence means this, you are.

Now, implying that it's not, that piece of evidence is not definitive, which is why you can only suggest something instead of conclude it, and you can suggest an activity, which is a different meaning of the word, but like on the word meaning that is like closer to conclude, it carries with it an idea that the facts do not definitively support that.

Suggesting. Let's go with the. For which the following most accurately describes the structure of the passage. Okay, great. I'm so glad we spent the time on it.

Let's look away. So the first paragraph, you know, introduces the, you know, I don't know, some evidence that illustrates a phenomenon, and then the author drops a thesis in there, and then the first, then the second paragraph is points this.

The third is where the author says like, hey, I don't know, and you should look into it further. I'm gonna fix something that sounds like that.

First paragraph outlines a scientific hypothesis, two predictions, describes the empirical conformation, third describes the empirical discount and all. Like, you could throw that away after the first part of that.

First paragraph describes a scientific theory. paragraph considers an alternative to that theory. I don't know what the alternative is, that's out.

I mean, there is no alternative. Okay, that's a great way that he says, second paragraph is a possible objection.

I don't know where the objection is. No, second paragraph supports the claim, so that's out. Second and third paragraphs describe empirical predictions that clarify the difference between the two proposals.

Literally, what are the proposals? Like, I know that we have proposed a hypothesis. So you might be like, what do you mean, Rob?

Like, that's the... lesson we do and like that, that's a proposal. A proposal is like, hey, here's what I think you should do.

A proposing hypothesis is more like saying, here's something I think is somewhat supported and it'd be nice if we research a little bit more.

D is not describing that kind of passage at all. So we're left with the second and third paragraph explore the possible and empirical implications.

How would I, you know, you know, another word for empirical implications could be important questions that arise. Let me think about that for a second.

Think about the very first line of the second paragraph or questions arise. It is, it is another way of saying, here are some implications.

So this isn't as quote, to my anticipation as I had hoped. Like it honestly doesn't really sound a lot like it.

But if you're flexible and you're like, okay, well, those other four answers are terrible. And the second and third did explore the author's thesis.

That's true. You know, do we really need the part that the second paragraph found supportive evidence in the third paragraph, the author threw up his hands?

No, we don't really need that. He's still true. It just doesn't go into much detail. But that's, that's what happened.

25, which is the following, if true, would provide the most support for the author's claim and the sentence immediately preceding the parent's theoretical remark in the first paragraph.

So this is a stock question of a proposing hypothesis meta structure. like, hey, could you fix this argument? So the author's claim.

Is that cooking so some people think that cooking is too recent to have caused a biological evolution? So what could the and the author's like no no no you're wrong.

So what would support that? What would support the author saying that? something anything that says that like cooking Anything that shows that evolution happens in a really short amount of time would support that So that's what I look for a no b yes Like I Mean doesn't be this is if this kills my laptop.

I'm gonna lose. Oh, it's gonna do it Okay, never mind. It's just the high level to look at one Yeah, I think if you look at line My screen is in the block.

a look at the iPad here. Yeah, look at line 17 to 19 And ask yourself if the answer trust be supports that.

I think absolutely supports the author's position, criticalizing people who think otherwise. It's good. B, 26 authors suggest which one of the second paragraph, second paragraph is all about like dental size, dental and jaw sizes.

And what's important to know about this second paragraph, you know, I mean, there are a couple different periods of jaw and teeth decreasing, one of them is two million years ago, and one of them is 100,000 years ago, and the one two million years ago.

to go. See, the author's like, well, you know, it's possible that the one two million years ago could be associated with cooking.

Possible. The one 100,000 years ago could be associated with boiling water. So it's a little bit, you know, an advancement in the technique.

So, you know, let's straight up wrong based on what I just said. B is true, but it is not suggested in the second paragraph.

It is suggested in the first paragraph and proven or like, you know, somewhat, supported somewhat in the second paragraph, but it's not suggested there.

C, that is whole. If you're like looking for the text, because you can't find D, because you're looking for the author to specifically say that, you've got to like zoom out a little bit and be like, okay, so the author said that there was boiling water, or like boiling food was an advancement in cooking technology.

Like, the author literally discusses later modifications in cooking technique. So I would pick D. And we have our last one, our author's primary purpose.

What is the author's primary purpose? Proposing a hypothesis. Look for something like when you read a passage that says that where the author throws out something and is like here's some support, but here's some stuff we don't A, no.

B, no. C, no. D, yes. And we're done. There we go. Remind. Questions, comments, anything on this one? You guys have any thoughts?

If not, I will end a little early today. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I will see you guys later. All right.

I will see you guys You know. All right.